Morality without God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ion said:
What you miss in your thinking is the tradition.
I recall an documentary, where a scientist was willing to declare that in the midst of their enslavement, Jewish people reinvented their past and wrote the bible.
You can’t.
Click to expand...
There are seven verbs in the four sentences above. To which do you refer when you say: ‘You can’t’?
 
Bradski said:
There are seven verbs in the four sentences above. To which do you refer when you say: ‘You can’t’?
Click to expand...
Bradski do you think that some actions are truly wrong regardless of whether people agree or not.
 
Linux said:
Bradski do you think that some actions are truly wrong regardless of whether people agree or not.
Click to expand...
You haven’t asked if some actions are wrong etc. You have asked if I personally think some actions are wrong regardless of what others believe.

The answer to that, as it would be for anyone, would be: Yes.

That is, I don’t require a consensus to make a personal decision on any matter. That is not to say I could not be swayed simply by a consensus, but it’s something which we should all try to avoid.
 
Bradski said:
You haven’t asked if some actions are wrong etc. You have asked if I personally think some actions are wrong regardless of what others believe.

The answer to that, as it would be for anyone, would be: Yes.

That is, I don’t require a consensus to make a personal decision on any matter. That is not to say I could not be swayed simply by a consensus, but it’s something which we should all try to avoid.
Click to expand...
Why?

Should we try to avoid a consensus because you find it personally distasteful to do so? Or because you refuse to allow anything (consensus, God, society, law courts, etc.) to have anything like absolute say over your personal determination of what is right or wrong?

If that is your position, then you cannot consistently hold that some things are indeed wrong regardless of what others believe because you would not be according other moral agents the same privilege as you allow yourself regarding moral principles.

If you allow for an absolute determination of moral principles outside of yourself, what is it that grounds that determination?
 
Bradski said:
Don’t you find this reasonable?
Click to expand...
I would if there were some evidence for it.

And if there were not another explanation.

So far I haven’t seen any evidence for this.

Not to mention the fact that one of the eyewitnesses to the Resurrection, St. Peter, did indeed write about this miracle.
 
Bradski

That is, I don’t require a consensus to make a personal decision on any matter. That is not to say I could not be swayed simply by a consensus, but it’s something which we should all try to avoid.

From the dawn of human history there has been a universal consensus that sodomy is unnatural. Why do you suppose that only in our own time has that consensus been avoided by people who demand that sodomy be accepted as normal and that sodomites of the same sex be allowed to marry?
 
Linux said:
I evidently asked if they are “truly wrong” and do you think it.
Click to expand...
Are you using ‘truly’ in a comparative sense or an absolute sense? This strikes me as an odd question.
Peter_Plato said:
Why? Should we try to avoid a consensus because you find it personally distasteful to do so? Or because you refuse to allow anything (consensus, God, society, law courts, etc.) to have anything like absolute say over your personal determination of what is right or wrong?
Click to expand...
I think you’re arguing for the sake of it, Peter. My meaning was pretty clear. I’ll repeat: ‘I don’t require a consensus to make a personal decision on any matter’. That is, something is not right or wrong simply because a majority of people say it is. Morality is not dependant on a majority. I know this is kinda weird, but people who don’t have a religion to guide them in matters of right or wrong have to make their own decisions on matters.
Charlemagne_II said:
From the dawn of human history there has been a universal consensus that sodomy is unnatural.
Click to expand...
This is heading in all sorts of directions, isn’t it…

In any case, sexual acts other than your standard missionary position between a male and a female have been quite natural since year dot. And even if there was universal consensus on something being wrong, it doesn’t make it wrong. Or vica versa. So I get to decide on whether two woman making love is OK or not. Not the majority.

And I’ll bet someone will have the urge to mention an Austrian painter very soon now.
 
Bradski said:
I believe that most people refer to Jonah and psalm 16 (and 22?) in this respect.
Click to expand...
What evidence do you have that 1st century Jews connected Jonah and the whale to Jesus?

And what in Psalms 16 and 22 make a reference to the Resurrection? :confused:

Resurrection was not a quality of the Messiah according to the Jewish understanding.

As prophesied in the OT, he would be a political leader (Jeremiah 23:5) and a descendant of King David. He would also observe all the commandments. (Isaiah Chapter 11). He would alsol win battles for Israel (Jeremiah 33).
 
Bradski said:
**I believe that most people refer to Jonah **and psalm 16 (and 22?) in this respect. So the gospel writers were convinced – or were trying to convince others, that the resurrection was prophesied. It adds credence to the story. Now we can go on to ask whether you find the gospel references to scriptural prophesies in any way credible. I don’t. I think that they’re extremely obscure at best and could refer to simply anything. There isn’t any way that you could use them prior to the resurrection as a way to predict it. They can only be used post resurrection…

Which, of course, they tried to do. And I think that you find them stretching credulity just as much as I do. And if you do, you might get an understanding of my point that they were trying to put as much positive spin on the story as possible.

Don’t you consider the scriptural references as ‘embellishment’?
Click to expand...
The problem with this analysis is that the “religious” position is in a “no win” predicament. If the prophesies were too specific you would claim they were contrived to fit the details but if, as you claim above, they are too obscure, then they could mean almost anything. What would an authentic prophesy look like to you? Does Isaiah’s prophesy (Isaiah 44:28) of Cyrus the Persian being the one to free the Jews from Babylonian captivity, about 100 years before the event, count? Of course not, you will claim, because it could have been written in after the fact. There is always a way of denying the possibility.

The real cogency of Biblical prophecy is not each one taken individually but as a complete collection with every one being plausibly fulfilled after the fact even though each prophesy was worded in such a way that the fulfillment can only create a sense of awe and wonder that it could have been written with both obscurity and clarity together before the fact. The Sign of Jonah is actually one of these.

My suspicion is that you don’t understand what the “sign of Jonah” really means so you don’t get how significant it really is in the prophetic sense. Please specifically detail what you think the sign of Jonah really refers to? Its real significance might surprise you.
 
PRmerger said:
What evidence do you have that 1st century Jews connected Jonah and the whale to Jesus?
Click to expand...
I don’t have any. I said that ‘most people refer to Jonah and psalm 16 (and 22?) in this respect’. Feel free to Google resurrection prophesies and you’ll get plenty of examples of people suggesting it. Personally I think it’s bunk. Jonah being spewed by a whale after 3 days foretells the resurrection? Gimme a break…

But…it is beyond doubt that the gospel writers thought that the resurrection did in fact fulfil prophesies - see the quotes earlier.

So were the gospel writers gullible enough to believe these so-called prophesies? Or were they bending the truth a little to embellish the story to give it more credibility?
 
Bradski

** And even if there was universal consensus on something being wrong, it doesn’t make it wrong.**

But it makes it more likely that it’s wrong.

Believe me, there will never be anything near universal consensus that sodomy is right.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Bradski

** And even if there was universal consensus on something being wrong, it doesn’t make it wrong.**

But it makes it more likely that it’s wrong.

Believe me, there will never be anything near universal consensus that sodomy is right.
Click to expand...
Heterosexual sodomy and homosexual sodomy are exceptionally popular, I would imagine that the majority of people indulge.
 
aprilfloyd said:
Heterosexual sodomy and homosexual sodomy are exceptionally popular, I would imagine that the majority of people indulge.
Click to expand...
Another example of a belief to which you do not subscribe without evidence? Your “faith” statements provide interesting insights into your belief system.
 
davidv said:
Do you have any facts to back this up?
How can the majority define what is true?
Click to expand...
Don’t know what you mean by true?

Quick Google search for some anecdotal evidence ‘oral sex tips’ - 33million plus results
 
davidv said:
Check any dictionary.

So?
Click to expand...
Was looking for what you mean by it.

To answer ‘so’ - it was just a way of showing the popularity of sodomy, by the number of people showing and discussing ‘tips’
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top